Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 12 August 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b3124
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3124
Multi-method evaluation and high quality reporting are essential
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The Ottawa ankle rules can reduce unnecessary radiographs in patients with ankle injury; two controlled before and after trials showed benefit—they reduced radiographs by 26% and 28%, with no adverse consequences.1 The rules have been described as "a safe, cost effective, and reliable approach to assessing injured ankles with impressive consistency."2 Given this, surely all staff in all emergency departments should be using these rules. This is not the case, however—surveys have shown variable uptake. Furthermore, even when the rules are promoted within a service with a carefully developed implementation plan, as described by Bessen and colleagues in the linked quality improvement report (doi:10.1136/bmj.b3056), the effect seems modest.3 Why should this be?
Recognition of the problems of implementation is not new—it is hard enough for drugs with proved efficacy, yet alone complex interventions such as the Ottawa ankle rules. Although we need evidence to tell us which interventions
Richard Thomson, professor of epidemiology and public health
1 Institute of Health and Society, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH
richard.thomson@newcastle.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses